POCSO Case: Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Allahabad HC’s Anticipatory Bail To Swami Avimukteshwaranand

The Special Leave Petition (SLP), moved by the complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari, questions the legal basis of the High Court’s March 25 order, contending that anticipatory bail in serious offences involving minors should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

The plea argues that the allegations against the accused are grave, carrying punishment up to life imprisonment, and that the High Court failed to apply settled principles governing grant of pre-arrest bail in such cases. It asserts that courts must exercise heightened caution, particularly where special statutes like the POCSO Act impose a stringent framework.

A key ground raised in the appeal is the potential for interference with the investigation. The petitioner has flagged the accused’s stature and influence, submitting that there exists a real apprehension of witnesses or victims being influenced if the relief is allowed to stand.

The plea also alleges non-compliance with conditions imposed by the High Court. It points out that despite directions restraining media engagement, the accused is stated to have appeared in public interactions, raising concerns about adherence to judicial orders.

Importantly, the petition clarifies that the challenge is confined to the legal principles applied by the High Court and does not delve into the merits of the allegations, which are yet to be tested during trial.

The case originates from directions issued by a Special POCSO Court in Prayagraj, which ordered registration of an FIR over allegations of sexual abuse of two minor boys during a religious camp. Following the FIR, the accused approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

In its order granting relief, the High Court had raised several doubts about the prosecution’s version. It observed that the victims allegedly disclosed the incident to the complainant, who was not their natural guardian, which the Court found inconsistent with ordinary human conduct. It also noted a delay of six days in lodging the FIR and flagged the explanation offered for the delay.

Further, the High Court took note of the fact that the victims remained in the company of the informant and were not immediately handed over to their families or authorities. It also expressed concern over media interviews of the minors, terming such exposure contrary to the safeguards under the POCSO and juvenile justice framework.

The High Court additionally questioned aspects of the medical evidence and observed that the allegations arose in the backdrop of a contemporaneous dispute between the accused and local authorities during the Magh Mela, suggesting the need for caution in assessing the claims.

However, the appeal before the Supreme Court contends that the High Court exceeded the limited scope of scrutiny at the anticipatory bail stage by engaging in a detailed evaluation of evidence, which should properly be undertaken during trial.

It also disputes the High Court’s interpretation of the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act, arguing that the legislative intent mandates a stricter approach once an FIR is registered pursuant to judicial directions.

Addressing the issue of delayed disclosure, the petitioner submits that the alleged incident occurred during the crowded and chaotic conditions of the Magh Mela, which reasonably explains why the minors approached a familiar person present at the site instead of their guardians.